The Daily times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1886-1889, 1887-06-15
BONDS INJUNJTION.
The Law and the Definition The Point at
Issue The Question of jurisdiction The
Decisions that Aitcct the Result.

Issue The Question OF jurisdiction ne
Decisions that tncct the Result.
Edit0r The Times.
Perhaps il is principle in journalism
To make the most serious matter readable
for the general public by ornamenting il
with a Joke. like That between the TINES
and the Uhlq. as to whether one borrowed
Mr.. Rovalls law orthe other stole Judge
Christians thunder But the real hard
facts and the logical deductions rs law
yers must see them, are as follows
IIaines VS. Carpenter, i'm 81 |. =. =.
c. Reps, has nothing to DO with The qucs-
ton at issue The simple facts were that
three suits had been already instituted in
the State courts of Louisiana, and a bill
was filed i'm the nitCd States Circuit
Court for the District OF Louisiana to en-
Join and restrain the defendants THAT is,
the plaintiffs i'm the suits alrcary insti-
tuted i'm the State courts,) from Jurher
prosecuting the said suit or any other suits
or litigation i'm the premises The SUI
preme Court. of course, held that section
72O of the Revised Statutes prohibited
the United States courts from issuing
such an injunction; O. g., AN injunction
against further prosecuting the suits al
ready begun or turtt~ prosecuting any
other suits
one cannot frthr prosecute unless
an action has been already begun The
question as TO the power OF the United
States Courts TO restrain party from
commencing a suit was in no way in
volyed.
The case quoted in 10 Blatchford has
been followed in the State Lottery Com
pany vs.. Fitzpatrick, Woods, 25j.
Levi stock, &c., vs. Crescent City Com
pany, I Abbott, L. ;. Circuit Ct, 3ss.
Moon vs.. Holiday, Dillon, "a.
The question has never seen decided
directly by the the United States Su
preme Court for the reason simply
that counsel acquiesced always in the
correctness of the decisions of the courts
below ON this point.
1t is IN fact foTeordered on a general
principle. common TO the administration
of Justice for all courts, State and Fed
eral, where jurisdiction attaches on other
grounds. as was held by the great Chan
cellor Walworth, of New York, in Mead
vs.. Hewitt >, page 402 3. He said where
party is within the jurisdiction of this
court, so that on bill properly filed
here, this court has jurisdiction of his
person. although the subject matter Of the
said suit may be situated elsewhere, il
may be the ordinary process of injunction
and attachment on contempt compel him
to desist from commencing a suit at law
either in this State or any foreign juris-
diction."
The term proceedings may properly
and think most necessarily, include all
the steps tdk8H By tie court ar Us Qf'cer'
under the process from the institution
of the suit until the close of the final
process of execution which may issue
thereon
Blatchford in :. VS.. Collins, Batch
l5G, and approved by Judge Curtis in
Chopper VS.. COburn, 2 Curtis 1854
offer to state these facts in the TIMES
because deem it very serious matter
with every citizen consideration, wheth-
er the policy OF party should include an
abrogation of the rights of the citizens to
do what the law of his country allows
him 10 do. CITIZEN.